Old Fucking Punk @lwriemen@librem.one

Trump Just Gave the Israel Lobby What It’s Been Asking For. Here’s Why That’s So Dangerous.

This article first appeared on Electronic Intifada.

Just days after U.S. President Donald Trump spewed vicious anti-Semitic rhetoric, Israel lobby groups are celebrating his executive order taking aim at supporters of Palestinian rights.

Israel and its most extreme defenders are not bothered by the president’s anti-Jewish rhetoric as long as it comes wrapped in unquestioning support for Israel.

Trump’s order, which he signed Wednesday, is evidence of that support. It is also a dangerous escalation of the attack on basic free speech rights.

Initial reporting by The New York Times claimed that the order “will effectively interpret Judaism as a race or nationality, not just a religion, to prompt a federal law penalizing colleges and universities deemed to be shirking their responsibility to foster an open climate for minority students.”

Asserting that Jews belong to a separate national grouping has long been a theme of anti-Semitic white supremacist ideology – and it promotes the anti-Jewish smear of “dual loyalty.”

On Wednesday, Jewish Insider published what it says is the text of the actual order.

It is more subtle; it states that “Discrimination against Jews” may give rise to a violation of US civil rights law “when the discrimination is based on an individual’s race, color, or national origin.”

But the core of the order is that it meets the demands of Israel lobby groups who wish to criminalize Palestine solidarity organizing – especially on U.S. college campuses – by conflating criticism of Israel with anti-Jewish bigotry.

It states that it “shall be the policy of the executive branch to enforce Title VI [of the Civil Rights Act] against prohibited forms of discrimination rooted in anti-Semitism.”

There’s nothing wrong with fighting anti-Semitism. Indeed that is necessary. But that’s not the purpose here.

Rather, the president’s order officially adopts language in the so-called State Department definition of anti-Semitism, based on that of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.

This controversial definition, promoted by Israel and its lobby, includes claims that it is anti-Semitic to say Israel’s foundation is a “racist endeavor” or “applying double standards” to Israel by requiring from it “behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”

Crucially, the definition claims that “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination” is anti-Semitic. This does define Jews as a “nation.”

It also means the government could claim that is a form of anti-Semitism to call for a single, democratic state in historic Palestine, in which Jews and Palestinians have equal rights – because Israel would no longer exist as a “Jewish state.”

In other words, the definition conflates bigotry against Jews, on the one hand, with criticism of Israel and its racist state ideology Zionism, on the other.

Even the definition’s lead author, former American Jewish Committee executive Kenneth Stern, strongly opposes efforts to enshrine it in legislation or university rule books, arguing that this would unconstitutionally infringe on free speech.

With this executive order, however, Trump has given the Israel lobby a way to circumvent the legislative process while opening the door for accelerated attacks on Palestinians and those who organize for their rights.

The order states that “the inquiry into whether a particular act constitutes discrimination … will require a detailed analysis of the allegations.” In other words, mere accusations of anti-Semitism against critics of Israel on campus are likely to result in lengthy inquisitions by the government.

Regardless of the outcome of such investigations, the prospect of being put through such an ordeal by the government is unpalatable to enough people that it will chill free speech and academic freedom.

“A baldfaced attempt to silence the movement”

For years, lobby groups have pushed U.S. politicians to pass legislation effectively defining criticism of Israel as anti-Jewish bigotry – and therefore identifying all Jews with Israel.

Two bills to this effect were hurried through last year only to stall in Congress over First Amendment concerns – and because of significant organizing by student activists and civil rights groups.

For nearly a decade, as Palestine activism on campuses grew, Zionist groups began filing complaints under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.

In these complaints, Israel supporters claimed that universities failed to protect Jewish students by not cracking down on Palestine solidarity activism.

The strategy was pioneered by Kenneth Marcus, who led the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, an Israel lobby group unaffiliated with Brandeis University.

The complaints were eventually thrown out by the Obama administration, citing lack of evidence.

However, Marcus is now in charge of the Office for Civil Rights – the body that investigates such complaints.

Last year, he announced that the Department of Education will apply standards that conflate criticism of Israel and Zionism with anti-Jewish bigotry.

He also re-opened a complaint against Rutgers University that had been thrown out by the US government in 2014.

Marcus has even called for students to be criminally prosecuted for protesting Israel.

Dima Khalidi, director of the civil rights group Palestine Legal, has previously warned that with Marcus leading the Office for Civil Rights, he would “do from the inside of the Department of Education what he has failed to do from the outside.”

On Tuesday, Khalidi called the executive order “a baldfaced attempt to silence the movement for Palestinian rights on college campuses.”

She added that “rather than providing any new protections to Jewish students against the rampant and deadly anti-Semitism of a resurgent white nationalism,” the order “aims to define the contours of what we can say about Palestine and Israel.”

“We won’t abide, and it will be challenged,” Khalidi remarked.

Fear and outrage

On Wednesday, US Congress member Bobby Rush condemned Trump’s move as a way to “stifle the speech of those they [the Trump administration] disagree with.”

The Illinois Democrat added: “What’s worse, is their exploitation of anti-Semitism in order to do so. [Trump] does not care about Jewish safety. Period.”

The Admin. that claims to care so much about free speech on college campuses is now looking to stifle the speech of those they disagree with.
What's worse, is their exploitation of antisemitism in order to do so. @realDonaldTrump does not care about Jewish safety. Period. https://t.co/wKDj0fpnBM

— Bobby L. Rush (@RepBobbyRush) December 11, 2019

Notably, none of the major Democratic presidential candidates – including Bernie Sanders – has so far weighed in on Trump’s executive order.

Students, activists and civil rights defenders expressed outrage and concern, while warning university administrations not to cave in to intimidation.

"Trump has never cared about stopping antisemitism – this Executive Order is about silencing Palestinians and the people who speak up with them.” @AlissaShirahttps://t.co/UgjMUi41fk

— Jewish Voice for Peace (@jvplive) December 11, 2019

As we respond to Trump's antisemitic attempt to redefine Jews as a "nationality we have to remember this is also directed at shutting down Palestinian student activism on college campuses and protecting the Israeli government from critique. We need to resist this together.

— Rebecca Pierce #BlackShabbat (@aptly_engineerd) December 11, 2019

Anti-BDS groups failed to claim Palestine activism was discriminatory because authorities recognized the difference btwn racism & political speech. Now they're redefining Jewish identity just so they can render that speech as racism. Palestinians are anti-Semites by exec. order. https://t.co/mnlfrC4SYo

— Amjad Iraqi (@aj_iraqi) December 11, 2019

My prediction: This executive order itself will be toothless but universities will be scared or opportunistic enough to clamp down on BDS work themselves. Also, this will fire up the "we're not antisemitic, we just think Jews should be in their own country ��" crowd (ie fascists)

— Tovarisch (@nwbtcw) December 11, 2019

Israel’s supporters, meanwhile, are hailing the move.

Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, welcomed the order, telling The New York Times that Jewish students are being marginalized on campuses.

He downplayed concerns that the order would re-classify American Jews, though noted that it adopts the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism:

(2/5) I've seen a draft of the EO & I can tell you it:
➡️Protects Jews and other religious minorities from discrimination under Title VI, but does NOT break new ground on identifying Jews as a protected class
➡️Adopts @TheIHRA definition of #antiSemitism

— Jonathan Greenblatt (@JGreenblattADL) December 11, 2019

AIPAC, a leading Israel lobby group, also praised Trump’s order:

We appreciate @realDonaldTrump's decision to give the @usedgov the authority to counter discrimination against Jewish students.
For far too long Jewish students have been targeted, harassed and silenced on campus for supporting the Jewish state.

— AIPAC (@AIPAC) December 11, 2019

Seffi Kogan, an official at the American Jewish Committee, deflected criticism by claiming that it would be entirely appropriate to assert that all Jews are part of a “Jewish nation”:

Fellow Jews:
Let's set aside the first amendment concerns for a moment (though they are important considerations!).
Let's set aside how we feel about the President.
I'm a member of the Jewish nation, aren't you? https://t.co/Czg8PZWW9Q

— Seffi Kogen (@seffikogen) December 11, 2019

And Christians United for Israel – a group whose support for Israel is rooted in a theology that yearns for Jews to be gathered in one place where they will killed in a coming apocalypse – also applauded Trump’s executive order.

Desperation

While civil rights groups and student activists prepare to challenge Trump’s order, it can also be viewed as an indication of the Israel lobby’s desperation.

The legislation that lobby groups hoped to push through Congress has been hampered by relentless resistance.

Students have been at the forefront of Palestinian rights advocacy and expanding the boycott campaign, in spite of sweeping anti-BDS measures passed by state lawmakers and attempts by universities to shut down speech in support of Palestinians.

Activists should not be cowed by threats from university officials, Israel lobby groups or the president. Rather, the executive order and the fight to come validate that the movement for Palestinian rights is a force to be reckoned with.

Thinking about how Trump’s exec order is a direct response to the incredible, principled, strategic, and powerful divestment campaigns that SJP students have been leading on campuses across the country. @NationalSJP and @jvplive students are incredible �� #BDSpic.twitter.com/J1eiGhdyC9

— Maya Edery (@mayaj_30) December 11, 2019

Trump’s exec order is a dangerous move to stifle free speech, but as a founder of two Students for Justice in Palestine chapters, I can say that despite the decade-long threat to shut us down, our movement just keeps getting stronger, larger and more diverse. https://t.co/NanBzCUfpp

— Randa MKW (@randawahbe) December 11, 2019

“As a founder of two Students for Justice in Palestine chapters,” tweeted graduate student and activist Randa Wahbe, “I can say that despite the decade-long threat to shut us down, our movement just keeps getting stronger, larger and more diverse.”

Supporting structures of wind turbines contribute to wind farm blockage effect

Much about the aerodynamic effects of larger wind farms remains poorly understood. New work looks to provide more insight in how the structures necessary for wind farms affect air flow. Using a two-scale coupled momentum balance method, researchers theoretically and computationally reconstructed conditions that large wind farms might face in the future, including the dampening effect that comes with spacing turbines close to one another.

Even in Bankruptcy, Coal Companies Can’t Stop Selling Out Workers

After key environmental protections were rolled back by the executive order of President Donald Trump in March 2017—including the Obama-era Clean Power Plan—coal magnate Robert E. Murray cheered the news. “I think it’s wonderful, not just for the United States coal industry, our miners and their families, but it’s wonderful for America,” said Murray, then-CEO of Murray Energy, the largest privately owned coal company in the United States. Murray had aggressively lobbied for the rollbacks, and In These Timespublished photos of his secret meeting, earlier that month, to deliver a four-page rollback wish list to Energy Secretary Rick Perry. It was sealed with a hug between the two.

Murray has portrayed himself as a champion of coal miners against environmentalists. “I live among these people,” he told theGuardian just before Trump signed the order. “These are the people who fought the wars and built our country and they were forgotten by Democrats who had gone to Hollywood characters, liberal elitists and radical environmentalists.”

But Murray Energy’s 2019 bankruptcy filings tell a different story. Authored by Murray’s nephew and new CEO, Robert Moore, they point to other coal companies that “used bankruptcy to reduce debt and lower their cost structures by eliminating cash interest obligations and pension and benefit obligations.” Reneging on workers’ hard-earned pensions and benefits has left competitors “better positioned to compete for volume and pricing in the current market.”

The language suggests Murray Energy intends to follow the example of companies like Westmoreland Mining and Blackjewel, using bankruptcy to evade coal miners’ healthcare and pension costs. In a particularly dastardly case, in 2007, Peabody Coal created Patriot Coal, a doomed-to-fail spinoff company, and dumped 10,000 retirees there; they lost their pensions after Patriot promptly filed for bankruptcy. But these bankrupt companies still manage to make good on their debts to banks and hedge funds.

Gary Campbell, 37, a member of United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) and worker at the Murray Energy-owned Marion County Coal Company in West Virginia, is scared for fellow workers who have retired. “The retirees are too old to go back to work,” Campbell says. “So what happens when they can’t afford their house payment or car payment or medical bill? They’re being thrown to the curb. It’s horrible to see people treated like this.”

There’s no question that coal workers face an uncertain future, but a phaseout of coal is a necessity: Coal is the highestcarbon-emission fuel source. A 2015 study found that to prevent the worst effects of climate change, the vast majority of fossil fuels—including 92% of U.S. coal reserves—must stay in the ground. That precarity will be felt most by the poor and working class who, unlike Robert E. Murray, won’t be able to retire to a secluded mansion when heat and natural disasters threaten their homes.

The way to champion coal workers is not to save the industry from environmental regulation, as Murray would like us to think, but to ensure a just transition from a fossil fuel economy—something coal companies have no interest in, but environmentalists and labor unions do. The Green New Deal resolution put forward in February 2019 by Rep. Alexandria OcasioCortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) calls for the United States “to achieve netzero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers.” Such a shift could bring coal miners dignified, union jobs in another sector—whether it’s coal cleanup, renewable energy, public transportation, healthcare or another field.

Stanley Sturgill, a retired UMWA coal miner and climate justice activist, advocates a just transition away from fossil fuels as part of a Green New Deal. “As far as a just transition, the only way to look at it is you have to find something equal or better paying than [the jobs] they’ve got right now,” Sturgill says. And it will be workers, not companies, who become the critical leaders in this process.

The just transition can start immediately: Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA and a vocal supporter of the Green New Deal, has repeatedly called on climate activists to support the 2019 American Miners Act (AMA), supported by UMWA. It would protect the pensions of more than 100,000 coal miners whose retirement fund was depleted by the 2008 crash and rescue the healthcare of miners whose companies went bankrupt.

The AMA is only a first step. In a just world, a full transition would include not only the dignified union jobs called for by the Green New Deal resolution, but shut down the coal companies and redistribute their assets to workers before they can go bankrupt and abandon their obligations—or further harm the climate.

At the very least, the Robert Murrays of the world should be recognized for what they are: enemies of the working people who, as Campbell puts it, “made them their fortune.” Coal companies treat their workers just as they treat the earth: something to extract value from, then discard.

A Brief History of the American Empire

And what to do next.

Getting Spoiled

The Democrats giving Trump whatever he wants for Christmas.

Choose Your Own Advent-ure

Wow, floss behind every window!

Victory! A new law has forced San Diego to suspend its face recognition program at the end of the year. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/12/victory-san-diego-suspend-face-recognition-program-cuts-some-ice-access

The EU Just Rolled Out A New Green Deal
https://earther.gizmodo.com/the-eu-just-rolled-out-a-new-green-deal-1840372906 #climatechange #climatecrisis

Why Did Democrats Give Trump a Win on NAFTA 2.0?

On Tuesday morning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that Democrats had reached a deal with the Trump administration to advance the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA), also referred to as “NAFTA 2.0.” In explaining the deal, she said: "There is no question of course that this trade agreement is much better than NAFTA."

Punching holes in opaque solar cells turns them transparent

Researchers in Korea have found an effective and inexpensive strategy to transform solar cells from opaque to transparent. Existing transparent solar cells tend to have a reddish hue and lower efficiency, but by punching tiny holes on crystalline silicon wafers, it allows light through without coloring. The holes are then strategically spaced, so the human eye is unable to 'see' the pattern.

The Future Is Calling, and It Says Act Now or We're All Fucked
https://earther.gizmodo.com/the-future-is-calling-and-it-says-act-now-or-were-all-1840369289 #climatechange #climatecrisis

Mountain goats' air conditioning is failing, study says

A new study says Glacier National Park's iconic mountain goats are in dire need of 'air conditioning.'

Law enforcement searches of genealogy databases impact millions of Americans. What the sale of GEDMatch to a company with ties to the FBI means for its 1.3 million users—and for the 60% of white Americans who share DNA with those users—remains to be seen. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/12/genetic-genealogy-company-gedmatch-acquired-company-ties-fbi-law-enforcement-why

We Need a Hollywood President

Climate climate change could cause human extinction by 2050. What would the president do if he or she were in a Hollywood action thriller?

Mayor Pete’s Mysterious Past

Even if he wasn’t doing anything evil at McKinsey & Co, can we trust anyone who worked there at all?

Our main takeaways from today's hearing:

☑️ There’s no such thing as an unhackable phone.

☑️ Lawful access to encrypted phones would take us back to the bad old days.

☑️ End-to-end encryption is here to stay. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/12/senate-judiciary-committee-wants-everyone-know-its-concerned-about-encryption

While Sanders Pledges To Vote Against Trump’s Massive War Budget, Warren Is Silent

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is the only 2020 presidential hopeful who has pledged to vote against—and loudly denounced—the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2020, a $738 billion military spending bill that would mark a $22 billion increase over last year. The other frontrunner in the Senate, Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee, which is tasked with negotiating the contents of the bill, but has so far remained silent on how she will vote. None of the other Democratic presidential candidates in Congress—Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Sen. Michael Bennet (Colo.) and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii)—have indicated their voting intention, either.

The initial House version of the NDAA included certain restrictions on how military spending could be used, including measures prohibiting the allocation of funds to an unauthorized war with Iran and stopping U.S. military support for the war on Yemen. But a new compromise bill, released Monday, strips these out. While the compromise offers some concessions, such as paid parental leave for some federal workers, peace campaigners characterize it as a win for the Right. The House and Senate are expected to vote as soon as this week on the bill, which includes authorization for Trump’s proposed “space force” as part of the compromise.

Erik Sperling, executive director of Just Foreign Policy, an antiwar organization, tells In These Times the bill is dangerous, failing to rein in the military in any meaningful way. “This NDAA does nothing to end our role in the horrific war in Yemen, doesn't explicitly defund unauthorized war with Iran, doesn't repeal the Iraq Authorization for Use of Military Force, and among many other policies that ratchet up the new Cold War with Russia and China, doesn't ban dangerous low-yield nukes that will contribute to a new arms race."

Just Foreign Policy is part of a coalition of antiwar organizations that is contacting lawmakers in the House and Senate, asking them to vote no on the bill.

So far, few have publicly pledged to vote no on the legislation. On December 9, Sanders and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) released a statement rejecting the NDAA as a bill of “astonishing moral cowardice.” The statement declares, “Congress should have used this National Defense Authorization Act to stop our endless wars. Instead, this bill does nothing to rein in out-of-control military spending."

“Every member of Congress should vote against this measure,” the statement continues. “There is no pressing reason for Congress to shower Trump, his Saudi friends, and the Pentagon contractors of the military-industrial complex with this $738-billion taxpayer giveaway right now.”

Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) and Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) have also pledged to vote against the bill, according to Sperling, who says Just Foreign Policy spoke directly to their staff.

Several of the presidential candidates, including Warren and Sanders, previously pushed for reforms to the NDAA that are not included in the latest version. But none except Sanders has publicly committed to voting no.

While peace campaigners contacted Warren’s office Tuesday asking her to reject the NDAA, the Massachusetts senator has not released a statement. She voted in favor of the NDAA for 2018, which gave Trump a bigger war budget than he had initially requested, but voted no to the NDAA for 2019. Sanders has rejected every NDAA under Trump.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) also has not yet told campaigners how she plans to vote, according to Sperling. Ocasio-Cortez did not immediately return a request for comment.

Sperling said that even if Warren ends up voting against the bill, it’s important for politicians to come out early—and strongly—against the NDAA. "It's not only important to vote the right way, but to come out with a strong statement and show leadership early. Members of Congress are looking for guidance from the major national political leaders, and sitting on the sideline can send the signal that defeating endless war is not a priority."

Warren did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Centrists Don’t Want “Party Unity”—They Want to Defend the Wealthy

As the Democratic caucuses and primaries hurtle ever closer, Democratic centrists ranging from billionaire Michael Bloomberg to former President Barack Obama are waging a frantic war to stifle more progressive candidates, i.e. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

In the name of “unifying” to defeat Trump, this centrist deception falsely insists that only a moderate can bring voters together and win in 2020. This argument may sound reasonable at first glance—but it contradicts facts on the ground showing strong support for both progressive candidates and policies.

Polling shows wavering and declining support for would-be centrist standard-bearer Joe Biden, throwing into question his claims of “electability.” And while Pete Buttigieg is polling strongly in Iowa, his numbers among African-American voters—a key Democratic voting bloc—remain persistently low.

While polls are volatile and ever-shifting, some longstanding patterns are clear. Foremost, several leading Democratic candidates—including Bernie Sanders, by substantial margins—consistently beat President Trump by varying degrees, belying the centrist canard that only a moderate can win. Meanwhile, the combined polling of Sanders and Warren consistently demonstrates strong support for a progressive nominee rather than a centrist one. (While Sanders is running on a policy agenda to the left of Warren, they’re both decidedly on the progressive wing.)

Ironically, establishment Democrats insist a progressive nominee can’t win, yet the clear viability of a progressive victory in the primaries and the general election appears to be precisely what they fear.

On issue after issue, from taxing the rich to universal healthcare and free college, a majority of Democratic voters sides with the progressive wing of the party over centrist naysayers. What’s more, analysis by Gabriel Lenz, a political scientist at the University of California, shows that voters are less likely to be scared off by terms like “socialism” if they generally agree with or approve of a candidate. And as Bernie Sanders remains one of the most popular politicians in the country, boasting high approval ratings, there’s ample reason to believe that his left-wing politics would not be the liability many centrists claim.

In the latest move to stop Democrats from embracing a progressive challenge to corporate power, Bloomberg has leaped into the race, plunking down an initial $30 million nationwide ad buy.

Sanders quickly blasted Bloomberg’s multi-million-dollar entry, saying, “We do not believe that billionaires have the right to buy elections. That is why multi-billionaires like Mr. Bloomberg are not going to get very far in this election.”

As Common Dreams reports, Sanders’ speechwriter David Sirota noted that "the timing of Bloomberg’s announcement lines up with Sanders’ rise in the polls and a well-reported meeting between the media mogul and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, one of the two wealthiest men in the world alongside Microsoft founder Bill Gates." Sirota added, "Bloomberg began floating the idea of a presidential bid in 2016, just as Bernie was beginning to gain momentum in that race. At the time, Bloomberg disparaged Bernie and his campaign’s challenge to Wall Street."

Obama, who until recently has maintained public neutrality on the Democratic primary, hurled his centrist handwringing into the political sphere, insisting that progressive leaders (read: Sanders and Warren) are pushing the party “too far left.” Politico recently reported that the former president has “said if Sanders held a strong lead in the Democratic primary, he would speak out to prevent him from becoming the nominee.” 

One close adviser to Obama, while refusing to confirm the reports, acknowledged: “The only reason I'm hesitating at all is because, yeah, if Bernie were running away with it, I think maybe we would all have to say something.” The idea that Obama would “intervene” to help prevent a Sanders victory fits a pattern of comments from the former president dismissing progressive candidates or policies as not viable.

The Democratic establishment’s undermining of Bernie Sanders is, of course, nothing new—substantial evidence showed the DNC leadership actively worked to undermine Sanders’ 2016 campaign. This round, establishment Democrats are back at it. In one early salvo, the centrist think tank Center for American Progress published an anti-Sanders video in April criticizing the senator as a “millionaire.”

Clinton loyalist David Brock, a longtime political operative, said he’s had discussions with other operatives about an anti-Sanders campaign and believes it should commence “sooner rather than later,” the New York Times reported last April. In a story depicting centrist moves to stifle Sanders, the Times noted, “His strength on the left gives him a real prospect of winning the Democratic nomination and could make him competitive for the presidency if his economic justice message resonates in the Midwest as much as Mr. Trump’s appeals to hard-edge nationalism did in 2016.”

There is evidence that some Wall Street and corporate powerbrokers who hold sway over the Democratic Party would sit out the 2020 election, or even back Trump to avoid redistributive policies such as the wealth tax. As one senior private equity executive told CNBC anonymously: “You’re in a box because you’re a Democrat and you’re thinking, ‘I want to help the party, but [Warren is] going to hurt me, so I’m going to help President Trump.” (While some Wall Street executives singled out Warren, Sanders’ wealth tax would similarly redistribute America’s wealth downward.)   

In truth, the divisive attacks on Sanders and Warren have nothing to do with assuring Democratic unity, or victory. Rather, they serve to defend deeply embedded financial interests and the wealthy donor class on which the mainstream Democratic Party has come to rely. Such wealthy interests are adamantly opposed to the types of policies being advocated by Sanders and Warren—such as Medicare for All and a Green New Deal—that would threaten their concentrated financial and political power.

Both of these supposedly “radical” policies, which centrist candidates routinely denigrate and dismiss, boast robust nationwide support, even across party lines.

More than two-thirds of Americans support Medicare for All, surveys show, while only 20% “outright oppose” this policy. The Green New Deal, meanwhile, registered more than 80% support among voters in 2018.

While many establishment critiques claim Sanders is unelectable because of his unabashedly left agenda, by many measures, he appears more electable than most of the other candidates in the race. Sanders consistently polls better against Trump than everyone but Biden; he consistently raises more money than his opponents and recently shattered campaign records by reaching four million individual contributors and his 2016 performance in key swing states such as Michigan and Wisconsin could bode well for a Sanders victory in the general election.

If the Democratic establishment’s goal is defeating Trump and winning the White House, the evidence is clear: a progressive candidate such as Sanders or Warren can absolutely win. There is, in fact, no evidence that only a centrist can.

As longtime political analyst—and former Democratic National Committee member—James Zogby recently observed, “Pundits & Dem operatives continue to insist that Bernie Sanders is too angry, too left, or too whatever to win. They’re dead wrong. He has the right tone & right issues to win a broad coalition. What won’t win is dull-edged centrism that can’t excite or convince voters.”